top of page
Search
lead-psychotherapy

It is beneficial to reflect constructively on the relationship between mind and body


The duality of mind and body has been a part of philosophy since the days of the early

Greek philosophers. It is evident ,for example, in the hylomorphism of Aristotle, as a variant

of his distinction between matter and form, in Plato’s idealism, and has persisted in one

form or another as philosophy evolved over time. It still represents a challenge for

epistemology, ontology and for all religions.

In the western world, the separation of mind and body was appealing and convenient since

it facilitated the concept of the soul, which in turn was stated to be a part of the self that

transcends earthly existence and was continuous into an afterlife. The quality of that

afterlife was determined by the moral status of the individual’s life prior to death.

The relationship between mind and body has yielded proponents of two polar positions,

each proposing either mind or body as the primary entity, with the other as a manifestation

or extension of the core reality. This longstanding debate became most sharply evidenced

in discussions on the nature of consciousness.

In both philosophy and medicine (the dual sources of psychology and psychotherapy) there

have been competing schools of thought on what constitutes consciousness and what status

it should be afforded. The essence of this discussion has been called the hard problem of

consciousness, i.e. how can physical processes in the brain explain subjective experiences of

the mind.

All of this has implications for models of therapy, both ideologically and for approaches to

treatment. Thus, schools of philosophy that focus on, or perhaps prioritise, what is tangible,

what can be seen and heard and touched, tend to elevate the body over the mind, often

neglecting the latter to the point where the very existence of a mind is challenged. On the

other hand, philosophies that centre on the felt subjective experience of the self as the

principal determinant of existence will see the mind as the primary entity.

This first category of philosophical approaches includes empiricist and linguistic models.

These frameworks directly underpin therapeutic approaches that also focus on what can be

sensed, and what is empirically demonstrable e.g. behaviour modification programmes. The

second category emphasises subjectivity and the reality of felt individual experience. These

include phenomenology and existentialism and provide the epistemological basis for

humanistic, person-centred and other therapies that consider felt experience as the

foundation of therapeutic progress.


Rationalist philosophies are linked with a range of therapeutic approaches that seek to

combine mind and body, where the management of cognitions is used to control and

cultivate behaviour patterns. In general these tend to side-step the question of

consciousness, taking a more pragmatic approach. If it is helpful to the client, if it delivers

improvement in the client’s well-being, is it necessary to address underlying philosophical

questions?


Teleological models e.g. logotherapy focus on a personal sense of purpose, self-worth and

felt meaning in life. Holistic perspectives in general do not address the question of mind-

body relationships or the challenge of the hard problem of consciousness. Instead, they

variously focus on the client’s significant relationship network (family therapy, systemic

approaches) or the client’s here and now configuration of his/her world (gestalt).

However, the fundamental question as to how physical events or entities can explain or

equate with subjective felt states remains problematic. It is a key issue in the philosophy of

science which looks at, inter alia, how we know what we claim to know. The problem sits

alongside the nature of evil, the dynamic between determinism and free will, and the status

of introspection as a source of valid therapeutic data, as enduring fundamental challenges.

The current state of progress in the application of scientific method to the hard problem of

consciousness centres on advances in neuroscience. Perhaps predictably, the champions of science tend to believe that it is only a matter of time before it will be possible to organically and neurologically access, analyse, and potentially manipulate what we now call subjective experience, without reference to any

non—physical construct such as the self.

While it is often possible for individual psychotherapy practitioners to ply their trade

without explicitly addressing underlying questions about the philosophy of science, and

their impact on our ability to fully understand how therapy works, it is at least beneficial to

reflect constructively on the relationship between mind and body, and especially the nature

of consciousness. In my own area of practice, addiction psychotherapy, the treatment

model in good currency is the biopsychosocial framework. This approach seeks to embrace

mind, body and consciousness as significant factors in the treatment of substance and

behavioural addictions. How this dynamic plays out in the case of an individual in the grip of

addiction, is a therapeutic challenge that may be helped by grappling with the underlying

philosophical questions.


This post was written by Frank Byrne. Frank is a Chartered Psychologist with professional activities are in two principal areas of Organisational Psychology and Addiction Psychotherapy. Frank is currently a candidate on the Doctorate in Psychotherapy in DCU and can be contacted at frank.byrne45@mail.dcu.ie


16 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All

Comments


Post: Blog2_Post
bottom of page